About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
increases doesn't change that reality. there's nothing in grover norquist's pledge that stops the ageing process. so there's no way the tax receipts of the 1960s will support the demographics of america in the 2030s. anyone who says otherwise is not taking the reality seriously. joining us is a man who always takes reality seriously. chris hayes. so one thing i always think is true in our political discussions is we don't like to face up to big changes. we like to use them as evidence for whatever policies are adapting. but the ageing of the society, i don't think we have come close to thinking about what that will mean for our economy or the government or any of it it. >> the only discussion we have is we're getting older so the entitlement programs will go bankruptcy. when you think about it, what does a mature society value and think about how you want to spend your marginal dollar. 25 maybe you want to buy an extra shot or get a video game system. >> i feel like you're making the 25-year-olds look a little trivial. >> if someone says you can spend a dollar to get an extra three month
the election in 1992, and which we're still living, because that gave us grover norquist, et cetera. >> let's get to grover norquist in a minute, but i do have a question. the gop plan consists of $2.2 trillion in savings over a decade. that includes raging the eligibility age for medicare from 65 to 67. and lowering cost of living increases for social security benefits. they also propose overhauling the tax code to generate $800 billion in new revenue. but without raising taxes on the wealthy. in a letter to the president, leading republicans compared their plan to one erskine bowles drew up last year. >> not even close. >> he rejected that connection and the white house, of course, is hitting the road. we'll get to that in a moment. but here's my question. i've been watching the coverage of this and reading it. and there's a lot of liberals who were like, he won, ha, ha, they're so arrogant about it, it's hard to like them. because it's just not attractive. but he did -- >> yeah, he won. >> and he is going to the american people with this. and why can't the starting point of these negotia
. >> they only need about 25 republicans to step over to agree to do this. and you're seeing grover norquist grip fall apart. this is a really important thing to do to improve the lives of young people. one thing to keep in mind, it is younger workers who are being hurt the most. the job games are heavily among 55 and over. we don't want to have a society where we get cynical young people that there's no woint in playing by the rules because you won't get a job any way. >> why not go over the cliff? if we go over the cliff, we're talking solving the financial problems. but we run the risk -- i think we might dip but it won't be anything like the first chart. what about that? >> i think that that may well be a good idea. it's risky, ed. there's some risk as to what will happen. but the fact is the government would then have all of this revenue. if it spends that revenue to create jobs and regardless of what the republicans say, government creates jobs all the time from school teachers like your money to people like my brother who was a ditch digger and could get to work because he was cleaning out
. the politics has to be traverse. they've got to get through the rocky shoals of grover norquist. >> does that make it easier to keep politics out of it? >> i think it helps for the two men to make a deal that might work for all sides. i sound like i'm a broken record for myself but i'm still trying to find out if both parties are trying to find a win-win deal, something that they can both sell as a win or if one or both is simply trying to get everything they want and let the other guy -- >> but can the other side do that? it would seem if the momentum is with the president, he would be the one more likely to dig in and say, i'm going to take a clear win. >> true. and it's possible that the president, given how the election went and given the fact that a couple of years ago he had to give what the republicans wanted on the taxes issue might say, look, i've had enough. i'm not doing that anymore. however, if there's going to be a deal that's going avert the cliff, the speaker can cannot sell just anything. he's going to have to get entitlement reform or significant spending cuts that are
grover norquist for quite some time. you went to the meeting, his wednesday meeting. >> that's right. >> he has all the time with some of the most powerful conservatives in d.c. and across the country attending. what was their attitude about any deal that boehner might have to make? >> it's pretty interesting when you talk to house republicans because they look at boehner from two different perspectives. on one side, boehner went in front of the house conference and he said, i'm not going to back any deal that increases rates. so they feel pretty confident on rates. that's where i think "the new york times" comes from. on rates they think boehner is still with house conservatives. at the same time, there's a lot of raised eyebrows right now because just as boehner is promising not to buckle on rates, he's purging four conservatives from committee. >> i was going to ask you about that. now, newt, and bob livingston tried that with mark newman back in '95. that didn't work out well for him. we said we're going to vote against every appropriations bill that you put up now. and the next
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)